Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T12CM07807
Parcel: 11615088L

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: COMMERCIAL - TI

Permit Number - T12CM07807
Review Name: COMMERCIAL - TI
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/07/2013 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change ARCT. IS LOOKING AT RESUBMITTING UNDER THE IEBC. TRAVEL DISTANCE IS EXCEEDING 200 FEET WITHOUT HORIZONAL EXITS. FIRE SPOKE TO ARCT ON 12/20/12 AND ARCT. IS LOOKING AT CHANGING PLANS AND CODES.-WAITING FOR A RESPONSE BACK FROM APPLICANT.
01/08/2013 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved 1) All future improvements will be cumulative in percentage, to include this project. When the cumulative improvements equal or exceed 50% of the current value of the structure; no other improvements will be permitted unless the entire structure is brought into compliance with the City of Tucson Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations (Chapter 26, Tucson Code). If the project is determined to be a substantial improvement, and, if it is determined that the lowest flood elevation is below the regulatory floor elevation, a design submittal, and review and acceptance of the submittal for flood regulation compliance will be required and shall conform to current City of Tucson floodplain development requirements in effect on the date of authorization by the Planning & Development Services Department.
2) For future improvements to this structure, a qualified appraisal shall be provided to Planning & Development Services Department - Engineering Division. The appraisal shall serve as documentation, as required, demonstrating that the value of the future improvements to this structure is less than 50% of the current value of the total appraised/assessed value of the existing structure, not including the land. An application / processing / submittal fee (and if applicable, any review fees) must accompany each future request for work to be authorized for this building structure. Engineering study review fees may be imposed based upon the fee schedule in the current floodplain ordinance. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to supply the following for all work to be authorized for future improvements:
" An 8-1/2" x 11" map locating improvement on this parcel
" Description of improvement
" Provide permit activity number(s)
" Title of improvement
" Type of assessment used for valuation
" Cumulative value of the building structure
" Value of proposed improvement in U. S. Dollars
" A calculated percent improvement

See FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT T12OT01652. Contact Elizabeth 837-4934 for questions.
01/10/2013 RAY MAJUTA ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied T12CM07807
1601 W St. Mary's Hospital Remodel

1. Sheet MO-02 shows VFD's SF1A ,SF1B and SPF1 to be 480v/3ph, Panel 1HEB1,where they feed from is 120/208v 3ph. The HP values are also different on the two larger units
per Sheet MO-02 and as listed in the power panel ?
2. Sheet E2-01, regarding circuits 7 and 9 in Panel ICC2, what are the total loads on these circuits, where is Panel ICC2 located, and is the panel 277/480v as fixtures show in fixture schedule ?
3. Sheet E3-01,Panels 1HBC OR8, 1LCB OR8, 1LCB OR9 are all shown in control room, where is Pnl 1HEB-1 located ?
4. Sheet E3-02, what are the Display and Sensor circuits connected to ?
5. Sheet E3-02, what is the FCU-1 1/12hp 208/1p circuit connected to ?
6. Sheet E3-03, SPF-1 again listed as a 480v/3ph unit however connected to 120/208v 3ph panel ?
7. Sheet E6-01, concerning the electrical legend for equipment, the main circuit breaker disconnects for CB 125a PDU and the 60a CB for the UPS unit are not show for location, these must be shown on plan.
8. Sheet E7-01, provide the existing AIC rating for the panels, only 10K AIC rating provided for Pnl 1LCB OR8 is listed.
9. How do new loads affect the toals loads allowed for the Equipment Branch, the Life safety Branch and the Critical Branch total loads ?

Provide a response showing how each item addressed.

Ray T Majuta
Elect Plan Review
PDSD, C of Tucson
1/10/2013
Ray.Majuta@tucsonaz.gov
01/18/2013 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Passed
12/26/2012 ERIC NEWCOMB BUILDING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. SHEET G1-01; CODES: REVISE THE ACCESSIBILITY CODE TO THE ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003.
2. SHEETS G1-01 AND G1-03; CODES: REVISE THE ELECTRICAL CODE TO THE 2005 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE.
3. SHEET G4-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLAN.
4. SHEET G4-02: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLAN OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
5. SHEET A1-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
6. SHEET A2-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
7. SHEET A2-01: PROVIDE GRID LINES ON THE PLANS.
8. SHEET A2-02: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
9. SHEET A3-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
10. SHEET A4-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLAN OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
11. SHEET A5-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
12. SHEET A5-02: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLAN OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
13. SHEET A5-03; DETAIL 1: THE THREE SECTION CUTS ARE NOT LEGIBLE. DARKEN THEM.
14. SHEET A5-03; DETAILS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, AND 20: PROVIDE A DETAIL (OR A DETAIL REFERENCE) INDICATING HOW THE METAL STUDS CONNECT TO THE STRUCTURE ABOVE. INCLUDE CONNECTOR SIZE AND QUANTITY.
15. SHEET A12-01: PROVIDE A NORTH ARROW ON THE PLANS OR ON THE KEY PLAN.
16. SHEET S1-01 (AHU FRAMING PLAN); SHEET S2-01 (DETAIL 3): THE FRAMING PLAN IS NOT CLEAR THAT THERE IS A DOUBLE W8X10 AT THE MECHANICAL UNIT SUPPORT (AS INDICATED ON THE DETAIL). CLARIFY.
17. SHEET S1-02 (FRAMING PLAN); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 5): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE BEAMS B1 AND B2 ARE W6X15, WHILE THE FRAMING PLAN INDICATES W6X9. CLARIFY.
18. SHEET S2-01 (DETAIL 6); STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (SHEET 44): THE CALCULATIONS INDICATE A 3'-3" PIER DEPTH FOR A STANCHION UP TO 8' ABOVE GRADE, WHILE THE DETAIL INDICATES A 3'-0" DEPTH. CLARIFY.
19. GENERAL: PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.
12/31/2012 ROBERT SHERRY WATER REVIEW Approved
12/31/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Clarify the plumbing code to be used for this activity. The plumbing General Notes on sheet P000 refer to the 2006 UPC but the Governing Codes section on sheet G1-01 refers to the 2006 IPC. This review has been made using the 2006 UPC.
2. Provide the City of Tucson Special Inspection Certificate for the installation of medical gas systems.
12/31/2012 ROBERT SHERRY MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the mechanical design as required to avoid using the corridor as a return air duct. Reference: Section 601.2, IMC 2006.
2. Revise the hydronic piping layout to avoid the use of the prohibited tees. Reference: Section 1206.1.1, IMC 2006.